I guess that limited test was one of the reasons for me getting thrown off CA...

So, correct me if I'm wrong, your point in issuing that test was not to show people plain and simple that they can't hear differences between different resampling of a same track, but that they attribute qualities to them in an apparently random way and so, in the end, demonstrating that if differencies exist, they are... well... different to every ear?

to the original question: I find it amazing that no server/client playback tech is actually gapless natively, because this is not something that a user (or webmaster) is to hack around, should ne native (same thing now with html5 video).

For example i can easily write a script that will know what the next clip is (or possible next clips), but i can't really do anything sane with that info.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, your point in issuing that test was not to show people plain and simple that they can't hear differences between different resampling of a same track, but that they attribute qualities to them in an apparently random way and so, in the end, demonstrating that if differencies exist, they are... well... different to every ear?

Well, originally I set out with the assumption that some people would actually be able to accurately identify at least the extremes, and I was curious about how accurately the "middle" ground could be identified. The +1 dB one and the MP3 file were there just as rough controls. But during the time I spent following CA while I was first preparing and then running the test, I came to realize that yes, it is all subjective. Unless you are a subjectivist, and then the subjective is the absolute.

What does that have to do with it? You made a claim, so you provide evidence for it. How is anyone else relevant? If this is your attempt to dodge a valid challenge to your unsubstantiated and, frankly, very unlikely claim, then itís a terrible effort. Abide by the rules to which you agreed during registration in your posts, or donít make them.

I just want to see what's passed the test.What's wrong with that? It's all supposed to be public, and publicly verifiable isn't it?

I read your post as being more about dodging the obligation that you provide evidence for your specific case. Of course thereís nothing wrong with what youíre saying here, and I hope you find the material interesting. I apologise if I seemed hostile. However, the main point raised by greynol and myself still stands, as well as the recently mentioned possibility that you were comparing apples to oranges.

That's OK. And I accept your main point, in principle. In practice it's very hard to know how to go about devising a good test that would be acceptable to people. I doubt if I could persuade my wife to sit and listen to the same piece of music over and over again, and my friends would not be inclined to do so either, so any test I could do would involve just me. If I can learn how to do streaming from the linux command line I could easily write an abx test program. Maybe I'll have a go, but I only have copyrighted music so I couldn't publish the files.

I guess that limited test was one of the reasons for me getting thrown off CA...

Thanks. Your experience highlights the problem of devising a good test. Once the files are published and others are invited to do the test it's not only hard to know whether they cheat by analysis of the file, but also unless they are very explicit about their equipment it's hard to tell whether they are listening to the files as intended (e.g. not resampled). One has the feeling that, short of an expensively funded research project in which a large number of people is tested in very controlled conditions, there is no practical way of anyone conducting a test that satisfies anyone but themselves.

Not really. It highlights the problems involved in a purely on-line test where you have no control over what the test subjects do with the files. It is very easy to do one if you have the test subjects in a physical location where you can control the playback process.

Anyway, my point wasn't to rehash the same old discussion; rather it's to help the OP feel better about a gapless solution that might not preserve the original bitdepth and samplerate of his files. If we're getting to the point where we're saying that because the tests can't show what is obvious during sighted listening then there must be something wrong with the test, then there is no point in continuing down that path. As 2Bdecided suggested recently, there are better things to do than try to fix the world one audiophile at a time. If we aren't going down that path and are getting through, then I think this was a worthwhile endeavor.

What kind of interference could be introduced by the presence of a GUI? How incompetently or subversively do you think media players, especially those offering relatively advanced features such as ABXing (e.g. foobar2000), are programmed?

Let's try to summarize: the OP asked for a solution to gapless stream under Linux.We proposed a possible solution, whose feasibility is jet to be verified, using Airplay.He didn't find it suitable for his needs because, according to him: A) Airplay is limited to 16/44.1 and B) he can hear differencies between two tracks at 16/44.1 and at 24/96.

Regarding A: no evidence has been found that Airplay as a protocol has such a limitation. Being only a transport layer, very likely this characteristic is left to be defined by the specific implementation. The OP has to try if and how it works for him. That's all about the gapless and streaming issues.

Regarding B: as far as we know, there is not in the world a single objective proof that a human ear can differentiate between two musical tracks whose only difference is in bitdepth and/or sampling frequency when both are above Redbook standards. This has nothing to do with issue A).If the OP wants to try for himself, he has to set up an ABX test, doing it as simple as possible and so not complicating it with streaming issues: if he states B) this means at least that he already has the possibility to listen to 24/96 materials natively with his hardware. Because he is running Linux, a possible way to setup a simple and fast ABX test is to use aplay and a few bash lines: as far as I know, ALSA can be configured to be bitperfect and aplay can pipe a bitstream (for example the output of a flac CLI executable) directly to the sound hardware.

What kind of interference could be introduced by the presence of a GUI? How incompetently or subversively do you think media players, especially those offering relatively advanced features such as ABXing (e.g. foobar2000), are programmed?

Most players play through the sound card and rarely offer a facility to bypass it. The sound card resamples everything to a default sample rate. The sounds cards on computers are not that good. It's nothing to do with the GUI. I'm surprised I have to explain that.

Regarding A: no evidence has been found that Airplay as a protocol has such a limitation. Being only a transport layer, very likely this characteristic is left to be defined by the specific implementation. The OP has to try if and how it works for him. That's all about the gapless and streaming issues.

Yes we've already been over this: I mis-interpreted a posting from another forum, and given that I've not come across any non-16bit implementations I thought that was the limit. More importantly, I've not (yet) been able to get Airplay working on my Linux machine with the N-50, so maybe that won't be a solution anyway.

QUOTE

If the OP wants to try for himself, he has to set up an ABX test, doing it as simple as possible and so not complicating it with streaming issues: if he states B) this means at least that he already has the possibility to listen to 24/96 materials natively with his hardware.

Yes. I can stream 24/96, though not gaplessly. In fact I find streaming more convenient, and in the long run if I can do it gaplessly that's how I shall play stuff, apart from CDs.

QUOTE

Because he is running Linux, a possible way to setup a simple and fast ABX test is to use aplay and a few bash lines: as far as I know, ALSA can be configured to be bitperfect and aplay can pipe a bitstream (for example the output of a flac CLI executable) directly to the sound hardware.

Yes, well I may end up doing this. But I was really looking for a gapless streaming solution.

There are two methods: Music on HD miniDLNA, or a player that goes through PulseAudio/Alsathence to: Pioneer N-50 Audiolab 8200A Audiolab 8200P Quad ESL 2805I normally use an Audiolab MDAC for listening (it sounds better for most music - no I've not done a double blind test ), but I wouldn't use that for any tests, as I don't think you can defeat the upsampling. The Pioneer has a method of switching off its upsampling.

I normally use an Audiolab MDAC for listening (it sounds better for most music - no I've not done a double blind test ), but I wouldn't use that for any tests, as I don't think you can defeat the upsampling. The Pioneer has a method of switching off its upsampling.

Virtually all the music I buy now comes in the form of downloaded flac files. These have no cue sheets with them.

Some of the music needs to be played gaplessly, and I'm under the impression that flac files + cue sheets is a solution to this. If this is so, can anyone recommend a linux program that would enable me to generate cue sheets from the flac files on my hard disk? I have seen software that creates cue files from music on a CD, but I can't find anything that does it from a folder of flac files on the hard disk.

Hi Kimber; guys;I just got the Pioneer N50 and I know from Pioneer that gapless playback was out of their hands, at least for the time being, I hope they update this one day.I have another much troubling issue with the player; it doesn't play FLAC files in sequential manner, the tracks are out of order most of the time. This is a problem with classical music as you can't listen to a symphony as if you are using shuffle play....

The problem doesn't exist with WAV files and is much less apparant if you use the front USB for my hard drive, it is very annoying when using DLNA, and as this is the better sound quality it is disturbing me so much, I can't change my >500GB music to WAV....Any idea of a solution for this??? I wrote to pioneer but of course they never answered....